I need input on playing style

[deeaa]

Well...here's a clip of a rough demo song I just played quickly D/I.

http://deeaa.pp.fi/clips/testriff.mp3

At 25 secs I play a lead in my usual style.
Then it starts again, first the exact same intro, then at about 1:20 I play the same lead but in a very different style (I'm being talked into playing it like that).

I can understand that maybe it sounds neater to some in the latter part where I don't play with my usual loose feel, I play to accents and such and not intentionally a little free-based...but I just hate playing like that, it feels like I'm playing someone else's riff if I play it the same way every time.

So the question is: which style feels better for you as a listener? Does it sound better when it's done in a boring square playing style or with my usual style of intentionally breaking the rhythm/picking and playing a bit quirkily?

[Monkus]

the first one sounds better to my ear, more emotion. The second sounds like a place holder for a solo.

[progrmr]

Hmmmm....I'm going with the 2nd. Then again I think the MXR Fullbore Metal sounds AWESOME and tons of people think I'm deaf for thinking that so take it for what's it's worth :)

[Jimi75]

Oh deeaa that is a little difficult I guess.
To be honest, I like your loose approach and
Rock n roll feel in general, but this time the
Conservative approach serves the song better. Here' why.
Listen back to clip one, it seems to have not the
right timing, it's not exactly nailing what this clip
needs. I'd try to go with a healthy mixture of both.
Don't get me wrong, your playing is as cool
as always, but the truth lays in between for me.

[Spudman]

I think the second one too. It feels more rhythmically in sync with the other part. I feel that it's easier for a listener to grasp.

[vroomery]

I feel like it's probably a mixture like others have suggested. I think I'd stick with the slightly square feeling at the beginning of the solo and then loosen up after about 3 or 4 measures. Specifically with the higher section, it feels pretty awkward without some variation in feel.

[deeaa]

It's like I feared.. :-( this is something I've been against all my life, but maybe just have to comply in some respects.

If I just think of the listener, yeah, I can see the 2nd one is easier to swallow. But, I feel like I'm selling myself playing like that, in 'machine' style. There's no challenge to it, just play it to the beat and that's it, easy and harmless. But the first one, it can take a dozen takes before I'm absolutely happy with the result, much more of a challenge. But it's dawning on me slowly that people usually want accurate execution and playing on very exact timing.

The difference to me is akin to that of between, say Santana whose neat style I usually dislike, and, Hendrix playing 'Star Spangled...' which is how I'd like to hear every solo played. I also much more appreciate, say, Sex Pistol's rhythm guitar work than a Rush song or any prog rock pretty much, or most any guitar hero music, which I find boring because it's so accurate and predictable. You listen to it once and you know the song, there's nothing out of whack to keep you interested, besides maybe a nice sound or something.

I think it's the same on rhythm guitar. Usually when I play my track it's like some people are wow that was spot on, let's move onto the next song, but I'm like NOOO it was way too neat, and then I replay it a few times more till I get it suitably skewed to my liking, not exactly on time but pushing a little maybe, chord changes having a bit roughness and noise to them or a brief extra open string there etc...one of my tricks is to vary downstrokes and upstrokes, you can get a really crazy sounding chord by suddenly playing it a little ahead of beat and with a slower upstroke so it ends just after the beat...anyway, then I'm happy. (No wonder I most like to listen to Angus and Neil Young, and both preferably live too :-) but, often I end up battling the other guys which take is better, the neat one or the more quirky one.

So...I fear there's no escaping I think that most people want it as neat as it can be. Just look at top-40 charts...all music is performed by computers or at least with machine-like accuracy and autotuned and time-corrected to perfection. That's what people want...:-(

[deeaa]

I feel like it's probably a mixture like others have suggested. I think I'd stick with the slightly square feeling at the beginning of the solo and then loosen up after about 3 or 4 measures. Specifically with the higher section, it feels pretty awkward without some variation in feel.

Yep, I think this is the best approach...play it partly like it was a key melody, not a lead, and then go for it at the very end only.

[Eric]

I liked the first one better, but it was a little too sloppy in parts. I personally want the freedom and creativity of the first one without being challenged to reconcile sloppy nonsense of playing way out of time and out of tune and everything, and that's as a listener. The first one was just a little too sloppy.

I'd also say that in general, do what you want. You have a style, so why not go with that? I think you're trying to connect with the listener more, and that's fine, but find a way to do it without despising your own playing. Selling out to what you think everyone wants, well...it doesn't seem like that works too frequently. Tempering your usual excesses...that might be a better approach.

[R_of_G]

I prefer the second solo. It seems better suited for this particular piece. It seems to flow more organically from the chord progression, which by the way, I like your play there quite a bit.

I think you can work some elements of your preferred style into the solo and still keep it enough like the more "accessible" second version to work.

I wouldn't say I prefer accurate execution in solos, in fact, I can tire of that rather quickly, but there are other ways to add color to the pallette while still playing melodically, first and foremost being tone. It's more a matter of what a particular piece calls for.

Given those two solos, I'd pick the second. That's not to say it's not possible for there to be options 3-100 of which I may prefer a more experimental approach.

As to your comfort level with playing it in a different style, there's question of whether or not you need to play it the same way every time.

I don't know the context of this piece. Are you recording it and concerned with what your "official" solo will sound like or is it something you'll be playing live? If it's the latter, you could just play it any given night however you feel like playing it. The artists I often find most interesting to see/hear live are the ones who don't play the songs the same way every time.

[Commodore 64]

I feel like it's probably a mixture like others have suggested. I think I'd stick with the slightly square feeling at the beginning of the solo and then loosen up after about 3 or 4 measures. Specifically with the higher section, it feels pretty awkward without some variation in feel.

Vroomery said it better than I could.

[Jimi75]

Hey my friend, you shouldn't feel like selling yourself when playing a non sloppy solo. Don't you think it has to fit the song? Most listeners are pleased with accurate solos and clean playing style. You don't have to play like a wallstreet banker, be yourself. It's not black and white.
It sounds like you intend to play punky and sloppy just to be different and rock and roll by all means, inda like "yeah I play sloppy that's how a real rocker plays the guitar!". I think you are more true musician than you think and a musician loves his song as much as he loves his solos. Bring the two together with whatever suits best and don't push yourself into a category :-)

You mentioned Hendrix. Listen to his studio recordings. They were very accurate. Live was a different thing with Jimi and I know a lot of folks who feel that Jimi also destroyed some nice musical moments with his sloppy endless solos. The best live moments are maybe the stuff that Jimi played during his two Berkely concerts and what he played live at the BBC. But go back and listen, he rocked, but he was also more accurate than during other live recordings. Also the Band Of Gypsys live album contained fast and accurate playing, although some of the solos are too long for my taste.

Deeaa, I get your point and understand what you are talking about, as I for myself am a player who is not the most accurate one. Also I had to live with the fact that in some cases you gotta play what a man has gotta play and stop arguing and fighting for your style :-)

[pedalbuilder]

It seems to have been said, but - yeah - I think you can find a middle ground which serves both purposes. I personally think the second solo fit in better with the track we were given, but like you said, it is pretty lifeless and predictable whereas with the first one was a bit sloppy but also felt more interesting, and like you said after a dozen or so takes you can get that sloppy out and just be left with a cool solo.

Mind you, I have done very little recording, but when I have done some and I've been given a solo to play 'correctly,' I've played it over and over and introduced my own feel to the equation over time, sort of working backwards from the planned to the unplanned. I kept enough of the prescribed and formulaic bits to keep the band and studio kids happy and I injected enough of myself to make it worth my time.

I also agree with what Jimi75 has pointed out about Hendrix and this also applies to a lot of other musicians. Also, these guys get those 'on-the-money' studio tracks to sound 'free-wheeling' by basically playing them over and over and over and over and over again. I've heard that Stevie Ray Vaughn was known to just sit in the studio for hours, and even days, just noodling on a solo idea until he managed to get it right. Don't know if this applies ot your situation or not, but it's food for thought: that middle ground between 'correct' and 'cool' can be a tough thing to find!